Much of the pre-game analysis focused on Richard Muller, UC Berkeley physicist and author of Physics for Future Presidents.

Muller started taking hostile fire weeks ago when bloggers noted that the famously anti-climate-regulation Koch Brothers were providing funding for his audit of the global temperature data used in UN climate reports. When he was slated to testify, speculation arose that Muller was hand-picked by House Republicans to savage the prevailing science.

But if there was any agenda behind Muller’s remarks, it wasn’t in evidence at this hearing, as Andrew Revkin notes in his Dot Earth blog. After Muller’s opening statement, which was deadpan and laden with technical detail, committee members seemed to shy away from him and pursue soundbites from more colorful panelists, who included:

With the notable exception of Emanuel, the other panelists provided much richer fodder for an anti-regulatory agenda. Armstrong called for the end of all government funding for climate change research, as well as support for all “global organizations” working toward agreements on reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

Christy said the US should not rely on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and needs a second opinion from a “non-activist” scientific team.

All of the panelists agreed that the global climate is changing and that human activity is a factor. Perhaps the most skeptical comment from Muller was when he said, “The degree of the human component is, in my mind, quite uncertain.”

By far, my favorite quote came from northern California Democrat Lynn Woolsey (who supports the IPCC findings). Woolsey arrived at the hearing fresh from a climate briefing for the Democratic Caucus and after listening to the panel, said, “I feel like I’m living in a parallel universe. It’s got my head going boing, boing, boing…”

The hearing took an interesting turn away from climate science when Woolsey, apparently as a sort of litmus test, asked all five panel members if they would favor a redeployment of the banned pesticide DDT for controlling malaria. Four of the six said they would. Two had no opinion (Armstrong & Emanuel).

Armstrong, who is not a climate scientist, provided what comedian John Stewart might call a “Moment of Zen” when he answered one question by saying: “I try not to learn a lot about climate change. I’m the forecasting guy.”

About the author

Craig is KQED's science editor, specializing in weather, climate, water & energy issues, with a little seismology thrown in just to shake things up. Prior to his current position, he launched and led the station's award-winning multimedia project, Climate Watch. Craig is also an accomplished writer/producer of television documentaries, with a focus on natural resource issues. View all posts by Craig Miller →

MORE POSTS ABOUT

What will it really take to meet the state’s aggressive carbon reduction goals? As the centerpiece of California’s climate strategy, the law known as AB 32 gets all the attention. But a little-known component of the state’s plan to mitigate … Read More

Move forms California’s largest science & environmental unit for electronic media After four years, numerous awards, and something just shy of 900 blog posts, the multimedia reporting effort that’s been known as Climate Watch is turning a significant page. KQED … Read More

Just a couple of weeks back, some stalwarts still held out hope for a federal climate bill this summer. But with the capitulation by congressional leaders on Thursday, this week the legislative landscape looks undeniably bleak. And with flagging expectations … Read More

But it’s still hard to pin down what, where and how bad Climate change is likely driving some of the extreme weather events we’ve been seeing and more such weather is on the way, according to a much-anticipated report from … Read More

Newer Post

Older Post

PLEASE, PLEASE STOP THE AEROSOL SPRAYING OF CHEMICALS IN THE SKY!!!! This elephant in the sky is never talked about, except in Newsweek, 2-7-11 and recent USA today. There is a chemical war going on overhead and media, Congress is silent. The universities are involved, oil industry to fuel the planes, plane manfg and chemical companies. If this weather modification, geoengineering is supposed to be a cure — the patient is dying. Why not get to the cause — oil and overpopulation — and greed. White haze, no sun, no solar panel functions, no crops and lung problems escalate….. By whose authorization is this done?

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com Ed Darrell

The hearing took an interesting turn away from climate science when Woolsey, apparently as a sort of litmus test, asked all five panel members if they would favor a redeployment of the banned pesticide DDT for controlling malaria. Four of the six said they would. Two had no opinion (Armstrong & Emanuel).

That’s a great litmus question, really. Anyone who answers yes:

1. Doesn’t know anything about DDT, but is willing to give the political answer without regard to that lack of knowledge; and
2. Doesn’t know that DDT is not banned for use in controlling malaria, so is giving a purely political answer without any regard to history, law or science.

So we know from the answer to that one question that Muller, Christy, Glaser and Montgomery were there as pure political hacks.

Thanks for the information!

Craig Miller

Apparently Paul Krugman was among those in the virtual gallery for this one. He added his own perspective in the NYT over the weekend:http://nyti.ms/hMmYVz

And Margot Roosevelt provided a good backgrounder on Muller’s temperature validation project in the LA Times:http://lat.ms/g3yusg

We’ve Moved!

About Climate Watch

Climate Watch is KQED's multi-year initiative to provide in-depth coverage of climate-related science and policy issues, with a specific focus on California. More …

Water and Power

Think water and electricity don't mix? Here in California, we wouldn't have one without the other. Now climate change is threatening to alter our water supply, and the impact could show up in your electric bill. Explore the series.